Is the NHS useless?

[GLASGOWOODS]

They almost certainly don't get enough to order something from justeat.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:49 ----------

 

What I told you was that they were restricted, and then I quoted the ASA.

Perhaps you can take it up with the ASA if you aren't happy with what "restricted" means.

I'll have to ask you to explain what is scientifically proven to be harmful...

Unless you're going to say Arsenic or Cyanide, I expect you're going to come back with a list of foods that are entirely fine in moderation, and not fine in excess... Which is pretty much everything.

It's called moving the goal posts, I note how you never actually conceded that you were wrong though on the NHS performing preventative medicine.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:50 ----------

 

 

No, he's in a debate with you, where you keep asserting things. There's precious little logic involved, just your opinion.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:52 ----------

 

 

For someone who's "not so good with words" you manage to dig out the pejorative "apologist" to describe anyone who disagrees with you didn't you...

 

Here.

 

This is what you're still banging on about.

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Children-and-advertising.aspx#.VjnHJ_ntlBc

 

Without bothering to find out the current situation (again).

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:54 ----------

 

 

You've now extended this ban to include parents, carers, grand parents and many other adult guardians...

 

You don't need a reason to be against a ban, you need a good reason to be for it.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 08:56 ----------

 

To be clear. The ban you are arguing for is already in place. It's likely to be ineffectual, and when you jumped to include guardians it starts to infringe on personal liberties of adults. And you only ever started talking about this specific topic, to get off the previous one which you were wrong about, the lack of preventative measures taken by the NHS to avoid illness in the first place.

 

My bold....Throughout my working week I see hundreds of kids in Ayr town buying their lunch in Subway, Noodles bar, McDonalds, Greggs, Burger King and Chip shops. Ok, they do meal deals, but still unhealthy eating.

[onewheeldave]

Advertising

Try internet search for healthy eating then try search for harmfull food.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22healthy%20eating%22

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22harmfull+food.%22&oq=%22harmfull+food.%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2176j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

OK. Now what?

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 11:08 ----------

 

 

Let's move on to your proposed advertising on all foods. Without food advertising how cold a new food product launch? All banning food advertising would do is cement the current brands into a position where no one else could ever challenge them. So if someone thought there was a gap in the market for a range of healthy breakfasts, well it would be tough luck there would be no way of letting the population become aware of their new product.

 

 

As our people are getting cronically ill, and, dying uneccessarily in droves, due to consuming 'food' that's killing them, you know what- I don't give a flying **** about the 'launching' of 'new food products'.

 

Back in the day, food was grown, sold and eaten. No-ones ever 'launched' a broccoli. Potatoes don't need 'launching'. 'launching' is a marketing concept. We do not need it.

 

Out of all the confusion and haze of paleo, low fat veganisim, primal, 80-10-10 etc, etc, etc, very little is clear. But one point of near consensus, is that health requires the eating of real food. Not processed, boxed concoctions of stuff that was once food, mixed with sugar, oxidised fats and bits of slaughter house sweepings of animal rectums and brains, but, REAL FOOD.

 

Real food does not require 'launching'.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 11:09 ----------

 

Fantastic you've finally managed to understand that I've been putting an argument forward! It only took 4 posts for you to grasp that I was putting forward an argument. Well done!

 

.

 

I understood your argument when you produced it. Your previous pussy footing around the subject, may, to you, have constituted an 'argument' but, I'm autistic and it apparently went over my head.

 

So now you know that I can perceive an argument, when it is presented as exactly that- a logical structured argument.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 11:25 ----------

 

 

I'll have to ask you to explain what is scientifically proven to be harmful...

Unless you're going to say Arsenic or Cyanide, I expect you're going to come back with a list of foods that are entirely fine in moderation, and not fine in excess... Which is pretty much everything.

Animal produce. Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that it's harmful in any quantity (in terms of it's effects on CHD and inflammation) I personally eat very small quantities, for reasons of my own.

 

Further, animal produce in our culture tends to be eaten in excess.

 

In contrast, brocolli and other plant foods are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consume in excess. It's really safe to eat lots of vegetables, and, there's overwhelming evidence that eating a fair amount of vegetables, on a daily basis, is also very good for health.

It's called moving the goal posts, I note how you never actually conceded that you were wrong though on the NHS performing preventative medicine.

 

The NHS does perform some preventative medicine. My point, which I very much stand by, is that it's far from enough, and, while-ever their priority is in symptom management/maintenance, that will remain the case.

 

The stark statistics of numbers of obese, diabetic, CHD sufferers clearly shows that prevention is not the NHSs strong point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For someone who's "not so good with words" you manage to dig out the pejorative "apologist" to describe anyone who disagrees with you didn't you...

It's not a difficult word to understand or use, is it? I know loads of people I disagree with, and yet don't think of them as apologists. I apply that term to idiots who defend systems that cause great harm, just cos they're used to those systems and incapable of seeing that they're obselete.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 11:30 ----------

 

This is what you're still banging on about.

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Children-and-advertising.aspx#.VjnHJ_ntlBc

 

Without bothering to find out the current situation (again).

 

From the second paragraph-

 

"it is generally accepted that children are legitimate consumers who have the right to see and hear what advertisers have to say. "

 

So children have a 'right' to 'see what advertisers have to say'?

 

Are you serious dude? Is that really how gullible you are? Are you really that easily swayed by their ****?

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 11:34 ----------

 

To be clear. The ban you are arguing for is already in place. It's likely to be ineffectual, and when you jumped to include guardians it starts to infringe on personal liberties of adults. And you only ever started talking about this specific topic, to get off the previous one which you were wrong about, the lack of preventative measures taken by the NHS to avoid illness in the first place.

 

The ban I'm arguing for is a total ban on advertising food to children and their parents/guardians- THAT BAN IS CLEARLY NOT IN PLACE. Remember, it's a ban on billboard, tv, inet, magazines etc.

 

I covered your confusion over what I said about prevention a few posts back.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 11:37 ----------

 

Just like the Police, Fire Service, Schools etc. Yet few people seem to have issues with these. Why does the NHS get people so hot under the collar?

 

Lets not forget that some of the most critical of the NHS and police, are those who work in those systems. Many of them find the ridiculous admin issues to be bl**dy infuriating.

 

No-ones criticizing those who work for the NHS/police- they're criticizing the systems.

[unbeliever]

Lets not forget that some of the most critical of the NHS and police, are those who work in those systems. Many of them find the ridiculous admin issues to be bl**dy infuriating.

 

No-ones criticizing those who work for the NHS/police- they're criticizing the systems.

 

Quite so.

Whilst willingness to bypass bureaucracy in public sector staff is something I consider a virtue, it is not without personal risk and should not be expected.

Administrators and politicians are largely the causes of these problems, not front line staff.

[JFKvsNixon]

As our people are getting cronically ill, and, dying uneccessarily in droves, due to consuming 'food' that's killing them, you know what- I don't give a flying **** about the 'launching' of 'new food products'.

 

Back in the day, food was grown, sold and eaten. No-ones ever 'launched' a broccoli. Potatoes don't need 'launching'. 'launching' is a marketing concept. We do not need it.

 

People are getting ill because of the choices that they're making. Time and time again I stated that this is where we should concentrate our efforts, but you seemingly want to ignore me on these points, and focus on individual words that I use.

 

 

I understood your argument when you produced it. Your previous pussy footing around the subject, may, to you, have constituted an 'argument' but, I'm autistic and it apparently went over my head.

 

So now you know that I can perceive an argument, when it is presented as exactly that- a logical structured argument.

 

You have stated many times that you have difficulty understanding other peoples arguments, could you please take this into account that your failure to understand my argument isn't my fault. I post in the style that I always have done, I do my best to get my message across. I would like you to respect this.

Edited November 4, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[Cyclone]

Just like the Police, Fire Service, Schools etc. Yet few people seem to have issues with these. Why does the NHS get people so hot under the collar?

 

Lots of people complain about the police...

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 12:06 ----------

 

My bold....Throughout my working week I see hundreds of kids in Ayr town buying their lunch in Subway, Noodles bar, McDonalds, Greggs, Burger King and Chip shops. Ok, they do meal deals, but still unhealthy eating.

 

Some of those are unhealthy. Gregs and Subway serve a range that includes healthy sandwiches. Even McDonalds serves salads these days!

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 12:11 ----------

 

Animal produce.

That's your claim. All unhealthy.

Meat, of all kinds.

Dairy.

Eggs.

Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that it's harmful in any quantity (in terms of it's effects on CHD and inflammation) I personally eat very small quantities, for reasons of my own.

 

Further, animal produce in our culture tends to be eaten in excess.

You've swallowed the cool aid apparently. You expanded the category of harmful foods to include the most common source of protein, and you think that banning the advertising of it is a proportionate response?

 

In contrast, brocolli and other plant foods are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consume in excess. It's really safe to eat lots of vegetables, and, there's overwhelming evidence that eating a fair amount of vegetables, on a daily basis, is also very good for health.

Indeed. And the government and health service bang on about them all the time!

 

 

The NHS does perform some preventative medicine. My point, which I very much stand by, is that it's far from enough, and, while-ever their priority is in symptom management/maintenance, that will remain the case.

 

The stark statistics of numbers of obese, diabetic, CHD sufferers clearly shows that prevention is not the NHSs strong point.

Or perhaps it shows that it's very difficult to change the behaviour of people.

 

 

It's not a difficult word to understand or use, is it? I know loads of people I disagree with, and yet don't think of them as apologists. I apply that term to idiots who defend systems that cause great harm, just cos they're used to those systems and incapable of seeing that they're obselete.

Ad hom now. Anyone who disagree's with the point you're currently making is an idiot.

The ban I'm arguing for is a total ban on advertising food to children and their parents/guardians- THAT BAN IS CLEARLY NOT IN PLACE. Remember, it's a ban on billboard, tv, inet, magazines etc.

And I don't think such a ban SHOULD be in place.

It's disproportionate and won't have the effect you believe.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Cyclone

[sgtkate]

Just like the Police, Fire Service, Schools etc. Yet few people seem to have issues with these. Why does the NHS get people so hot under the collar?

I meant complaining about them not being free! That wasn't clear from my post.

[Cyclone]

I suppose it's worth noting that the NHS doesn't have the power to enact legislation to ban food advertising.

 

Which comes back to the fact that the NHS does practice preventative medicine, but in a lot of cases all it can actually do is advise the government on a range of options.

[onewheeldave]

People are getting ill because of the choices they they're making. Time and time again I stated that this is where we should concentrate our efforts, but you seemingly want to ignore me on these points, and focus on individual words that I use.

I understand that you put the blame on people and their choices. I just disagree with you. I can't get into every side-branch argument that comes up, but, consisely, I don't blame the people cos I know how frustrating the lack of clear nutritional advice is. I've spent 100's of hours researching dietary issues and the data is a mess/

 

When it comes to rational analysis, I'm way more intelligent than average, and, I've got way more time available than the average member of the public (who generally have careers and a family and a social life (I don't, as is very common amongst autistics). IMO, the average member of the public suffering from CHD/obesity/heart disease has little chance of obtaining the info they need to benefit their conditions.

 

Couple that with the fact that they are constantly bombarded by very effective advertising geared to getting people to eat 'foods' that will worsen their condition.

 

Add in the fact that processed 'foods' often are deliberately habit forming, and a smattering of eating disorders.

 

I cannot bring myself to put the blame on them. I feel sorry for them.

 

You, in contrast are happy to put the blame on them (or on their choices). I DO understand that, but, I disagree.

 

You have stated many times that you have difficulty understanding other peoples arguments, could you please take this into account that your failure to understand my argument isn't my fault. I post in the style that I always have done, I do my best to get my message across. I would like you to respect this.

It's no-ones fault.

 

I'm actually very, very good with actual logical arguments. My abilities with logic are way, way above average. My problem is the communication issues between autistics and neurotypicals (these are well covered in the relevant scientific literature on the subject)- none of those issues are logic based.

 

I will make an effort to appreciate your style of communication.

 

For me (and probably many other autistics) pure cold logic is the best way of getting something across with minimal risk of misunderstandings.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 12:39 ----------

 

That's your claim. All unhealthy.

Meat, of all kinds.

Dairy.

Eggs.

 

You've swallowed the cool aid apparently. You expanded the category of harmful foods to include the most common source of protein, and you think that banning the advertising of it is a proportionate response?

Indeed. And the government and health service bang on about them all the time!

You seem to have swallowed some 'protein propaganda'.

 

Of all the nutritional issues plaguing and killing our population, protein deficiency is not amongst them

 

Can you show me a single documented case of protein deficiency in a person who's not starving to death?

And I don't think such a ban SHOULD be in place.

It's disproportionate and won't have the effect you believe.

 

That's cool. My only issue was that you several times seemed to be claiming that the total ban I want in place, is in place. Now we've cleared that up you can continue to not want a total ban, while I can continue to want a total ban.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 12:46 ----------

 

 

Which comes back to the fact that the NHS does practice preventative medicine, but in a lot of cases all it can actually do is advise the government on a range of options.

 

Though the question occurs to me- given that the total ban on advertising tobacco is so stunningly effective, why do you think that a total ban on advertising harmful foods, won't be?

[Beauchiefs]

The NHS does perform some preventative medicine. My point, which I very much stand by, is that it's far from enough, and, while-ever their priority is in symptom management/maintenance, that will remain the case. QUOTE from onewheedave

 

 

The NHS Priority of keeping people alive, easing suffering and treating ailments surely is preferred.

There are plenty of healthy eating guides provided by the NHS and GP's. Most things we eat and drink are harmful if done in excess, it is a matter of lifestyles we choose. Most if not all TV Food programs concentrate on healthy eating.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Beauchiefs
Add Quote

[Cyclone]

 

Though the question occurs to me- given that the total ban on advertising tobacco is so stunningly effective, why do you think that a total ban on advertising harmful foods, won't be?

 

Because people don't need to smoke, they DO need to eat.

And despite your claims animal products are not all inherently harmful, unlike tobacco, which has no positive effect and only harms you.

 

I'd also be interested to find out why you attribute the fall in smoking to the ban on advertising and not to the various other measures taken?